TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (4) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which according to the High Court were inadmissible in evidence. In support of the appeal, Mr. Hardy learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted a short point before us. It appears that the case of the respondent was being tried by a Special Judge a who after hearing the patties passed a well reasoned order by which he framed charges against the respondent. Against this order revision was taken to the High Court which was dismissed and the order of the Special Judge was upheld. Meanwhile, this Court decided in the case of P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. 1971 CriLJ 523, that where the evidence relied on by the prosecution consisted of statements which are signed by the makers of the statements and are obtained under inducement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the lodging of a charge sheet. Clearly the idea is that no one should be put to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it. After sometime the original Special Judge was succeeded by another Special Judge who framed charges and at that time the respondent raised the question of law that as the charges were mainly based on the statement of witnesses who had given signed statements earlier under duress or inducement, the charges should be quashed. The second special Judge rejected the contention of the respondent and framed the charges. Against this order, the respondent filed a second revision petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned order of the High Court....